Search This Blog

Thursday, April 29, 2010

Why Darwinism is the biggest lie you've heard

Common Darwin cartoon credited here
I am going to be posting some technical posts in the coming days. But first let me set the scene with a few review points. I believe Darwinism is the biggest lie ever told. It is an absolute whopper. If you think about what they want you to believe, everything came from nothing from a series of lucky accidents that taken together are so far past impossible it cannot truly be calculated. Therefore Darwinism is a hindrance to science because so much time and effort is put into trying to prove the unprovable.
A few disclosures:

  • I do not agree with everything that or Answers In Genesis or Rocky Mountain Fellowship or Discovery Institute or Institute for Creation Research says.

  • Two major points of disagreement are the matter of the appearance of light and whether there were Paluxy tracks of both men and dinosaurs. I do not think creating light first with events illustrated within them is deceptive, I think it is educational. I do think enough evidence exists to show that there were once obvious human footprints among the dinosaur prints. That argument is not particularly important in the big scheme.

  • I do not use undependable sites like Dr. Dino and will pay no attention to your undependable sites such as talkorigins. This is not debatable. You mention talkorigins and I just pass your comments by. No intentionally incorrect origins sites allowed.

  • I am a Christian and I consider the Bible to be evidence.

  • Everybody has a worldview. If someone tells you that they don't they are either ignorant or they simply don't want to admit it.

  • Scientism (or naturalistic materialism) is a worldview and is not foundational for science.

Darwinism is my shortcut for the naturalistic materialistic atheistic macroevolutionary worldview, which is the ruling paradigm and is a matter of opinion and not fact. If Darwinists are uncomfortable with that and wish to dissassociate themselves in some way that is fine but putting neo in front of Darwinism is simply wearying and unnecessary. Readers get the general idea.

YEC stands for Young Earth Creationist or Creationism.

ID stands for Intelligent Design.

Facilitated Variation will be explained in detail in the next post from a different source but I have been posting Dr. Alex Williams' articles with commentary to explain it in recent days. I consider it the final nail in the Darwinist coffin. But you will see that for yourself shortly.

For many centuries, even millenia, man has believed that God created all things. The Bible asserts that God created all things. Most cultures not associated with Christianity has some form of deity creating the world in some way.

Darwinists say it just exploded out of nothing. None of them can agree on how and they all admit that the Universe does not fit what would be expected from the Big Bang, even after having made up all sorts of unseen elements of the Universe that have not been observed.

The Bible asserts that God created life and the last form of life created within a six day period was man.

Darwinists say that by some incredible stroke of luck a bunch of stuff banged into other stuff just right and formed a living creature of some kind. From that point things just kept banging into each other until they got so sophisticated that millions of different varieties of living things with coding systems more complex that cray computers are not only found on Earth but also are born with in many cases remarkably complex behavioral patterns that must interact with completely different creatures. Engineers study creatures both large and small to learn from their design features still today.

The Bible says that all creatures were created "kinds" (baramin) and that kinds would produce more of the same kind. We continue to see this today.

Darwinists say that all things evolved from one or two or ten simple organisms. Evolution from one kind of animal or plant to another has never been observed.

Natural selection is a description of the design features of the cell's genetic material, which comes preloaded with a variety of choices in order to help assure the survival of the kind.

Darwinists think natural selection is some kind of force, like gravity. Mixed with magic. Mixed with intentionality. They really like natural selection.

Mutations are mistakes that usually kill or harm a creature. On occasion a mutation will have benefit in an unusual set of circumstances.

Mutations are considered by Darwinists to have some of the same magic and intentionality of natural selection. When an organism needs wings or a longer snout, it just mutates the needed thing.

The rock layers of the Earth are sedimentary and associated in almost every case with water. There is also a bit of volcanic activity demonstrated but water is the key. The very large and clearly delineated layers most often seen in canyons are typical of flood layers but on a far larger scale than modern man has ever seen. The Bible explains them with a worldwide flood.

Darwinists still try to shoehorn millions of years into the layers even though uniformitarianism has been completely abandoned.

Creatures have (some, not all) irreducibly complex systems that cannot be explained by Darwinists although they do go to great and tortured lengths to try to explain them.

In fact Darwinists have to go quickly into just-so stories when pinned down to explain any of this and if you made them try to explain how a nothing turned into a horse they would need years to go through the explanation in detail. Most reasonable people would walk away after about twenty minutes. This is why Darwinists just use magic words for unproven processes and simply keep repeating the lies, have academia repeat the lies, have the media repeat the lies over and over and over. And over and over and over and over. But no matter how many times some Oprah Winfrey tells us that a creature decided to learn to fly or develop improved sight and so on and so forth the means by which this would happen is not explained. When you look into what they say you wind up with the equivalent of a Russian Matryuska doll with the same thing under the same thing under the same thing. Something somehow happened we don't know what it was just as long as it wasn't God!

No Darwinist can even begin to explain how the Brush Turkey knows how to make just the right nest that provides just the right temperature for the eggs by moving a twig or scratching some dirt in that great big pile it makes. Daddy Brush Turkeys do not teach the young how to do this and yet every generation of Brush Turkey does the same thing time after time.

No Darwinist can explain how a Bombadier Beetle is able to fire explosive shots at enemies without blowing itself up or burning itself. Or sending itself off into the distance like a rocket. There could be no transitional forms, they would not live.

No Darwinist can explain the remarkable pressure sensitive valve and vein and artery system of the neck of a Giraffe. Nor can they understand the sophisiticated brain padding and eye mechanism of the Woodpecker and their very sophisticated tongues. Or how some spiders can make ten different kinds of webbing and understand just how to use and engineer them. How do migratory animals know where to go when they have never been there before? On and on and on.

No Darwinist can explain why all animals found in rock records are fully formed. The very commonly found trilobite is not primitive at all, it has one of the most sophisticated eyes of all the animal kingdom. Some animals are still unchanged now basically from the animals found in fossils and same with plants. So many "Lazarus" organisms have been found that were once thought to be part of an evolutionary chain that it is no longer big news.

No Darwinist can explain how dinosaur flesh is found in basically mummified form rather than fossilized. This one point alone should falsify the millions of years myth but of course Darwinists do not like to admit this.

Darwinists like to try to criticize the design of organisms as bad design, thus meaning God would not have made such "mistakes." But let's face it, any organism that lasts through the whole flood thing and all the various ecological changes and not just one or one million but billions of billions of them? Organisms so complex we still do not have them completely figured out? Yeah, Darwinists are SO NOT in position to say God screwed up. Pretty well all the vestigal organs and parts have been shown not to be vestigal and the "junk DNA" turns out to be critical to reproduction.

Darwinists are dedicated to the idea that Anything But God must be found and defended. They are unwilling to consider the concept and hate and fear and loathe the concept especially now when it is more obvious than ever that God is the only logical answer...

Sorry about Baraminology it will be coming within a couple of days but some new readers have suggested that I kind of set the stage first...

Sunday, April 25, 2010

I stand for the first amendment and against Islamofascism! May 20th, 2010!

As you know, the DayByDay cartoons are linked on my bloglinks down along the left side of the blog. I do not watch South Park and I know the creators are irreverent and sometimes downright perverse (hence, I do not watch the show). But I also deplore censorship.

Political correctness and censorship have dumbed-down our public schools and severely limited our understanding of science and history. The leaders of the NEA and DEA along with NCSE have managed to promote sexual behavior of many kinds to children while "shielding them" from even a cursory understanding of the founding of our nation, the Reformation and of course any form of intelligent design.

I do understand that there are many followers of Islam who do not rape children or abuse their wives or try to cut off your head for even posting a picture of Mohammed/Muhammed. Not all Muslims wish to kill you or me or blame "immoral women" for earthquakes and volcanoes. People like that will not take umbrage if I post the cartoon above. As to those that do? You are all radical wingnuts who think heaven is an unending weekend in Vegas with 500 dollar hookers and lots of booze who blow up children and attribute it to the will of "Allah." You do not like it? Too bad!

Cartoonist Molly Norris created the above cartoon and suggested that May 20th be an "Everybody Draw Mohammed Day" to call attention to the idiotic, hateful excesses of Islam Jihadists. You think drawing or posting a cartoon is bad?

THIS is what I think is bad!

"More disturbing details in the death of a Yemeni teen at the hands of her husband.

Women are powerless in Islam. The girl’s mother didn’t prevent the marriage, and urged the girl to consummate the marriage. This is the norm in Yemen. That chirping sound you hear is feminists throughout the West who remain silent, and CAIR, and the host of Muslim women now working in the White House. Shhhh.

A 13-year-old Yemeni child bride who bled to death shortly after marriage was tied down and forced to have sex by her husband, according to interviews with the child’s mother, police and medical reports.

The girl’s mother, Nijma Ahmed, 50, told the Associated Press that before her daughter lost consciousness, she said that her husband had tied her up and forced himself on her. “She looked like she was butchered,” she said about her daughter’s injuries.

Elham Assi, 13, bled to death hours after she spoke to her mother and just days after she was married to a 23-year-old man. She died on April 2 in the deeply poor Yemeni village of Shueba, some 200 kilometers northwest of the capital. Her husband, Abed al-Hikmi, is in police custody..."

Christian extremists become pastors and missionaries and found homeless shelters. Often Buddhist or Hindu or Jewish extremist found shelters or organizations to help others. Islamic extremists blow up innocent people, rape children and then claim to have moral authority. All who murder innocents in the name of Allah will wake up in hell and deservedly so!

I don't need to link to examples of Islamic radicals murdering innocents because it is so commonplace that a day with no terrorism is probably more unusual than not. Islamofacist terrorists are no better than those who murdered Jews in Germany and Eastern Europe and Russia, no better than Pol Pot the murderer of millions of Cambodians and no better than Chairman Mao who murdered tens of millions of Chinese, no better than Che Guevera and Josef Stalin and all other murderous bloodthirsty degraded human beings.

It is very hard to find other extremist religious positions that include the deliberate murder of innocents in order to enter a "paradise" and advance the cause. Perhaps the Kamikaze pilots of 1940's Japan? No, even they were at least waging war against other warriors. These terrorists are without excuse.

May 20th. Show that you believe in freedom of speech and are not cowed by Islamofascism!!!

Saturday, April 24, 2010

Darwinism is a religion and an excuse for bad behavior.

Aldous Huxley:
Admits motive for anti-Christian bias

Aldous Huxley was a British novelist who wrote Brave New World (1932), and was a grandson of ‘Darwin’s Bulldog’, T.H. Huxley. He was also the brother of the leading atheistic evolutionist Sir Julian Huxley (see quotes: Humanism as religion and Human soul and religion are just the product of religion), and died the same day as Christian apologist C.S. Lewis (see his quotes Materialistic Thoughts and Science began with belief in a Lawmaker), and the assassination of JFK (22 Nov. 1963). He is infamous for his advocacy of a drug-fueled utopia. In his mid-life he got involved in eastern mysticism. Aldous Huxley made this frank admission about his anti-Christian motivation:

"I had motive for not wanting the world to have a meaning; consequently assumed that it had none, and was able without any difficulty to find satisfying reasons for this assumption. The philosopher who finds no meaning in the world is not concerned exclusively with a problem in pure metaphysics, he is also concerned to prove that there is no valid reason why he personally should not do as he wants to do, or why his friends should not seize political power and govern in the way that they find most advantageous to themselves. … For myself, the philosophy of meaninglessness was essentially an instrument of liberation, sexual and political."


Huxley, A., Ends and Means, 1937, pp. 270 ff.

Scientists are the high priests of Darwinism

"Anyone who questions man’s reasoning, particularly on the origin of the physical world, faces an arrogance almost beyond comprehension. Many scientists realize the weak underpinnings of scientific models but the spokesmen of naturalism and their media advocates will not abide anything that questions either the supremacy of man, his reasoning power or his conclusions. I have seen media interviewers, who gladly try to tear Christian and conservative guests to pieces, grovel before a scientist who is [one of the] illuminati of evolutionary thought. No one would dare to try to question a living example of the superiority of man’s reasoning power. They are in the presence of a high priest of the one and only knowledge — let all the earth keep silent before him!"

Dr Emmett Williams, Creation Research Society Quarterly, 29(2):84, September 1992.


I have had the pleasure of meeting some very brilliant scientists and theologians, such as Jonathan Sarfati and Gary Bates, Tas Walker, Gary DeMar, Hank Hannegraff and RC Sproul, Jr. among others. Each of these men would agree that their belief in God is a factor in their worldview and their overall system of beliefs. In fact everyone has some kind of opinion about a supreme being, positive or negative and of course often expressed in very different ways. Everyone has an opinion on whether or not there is a supernatural component to existence or outside the scope of existence as part of a greater reality. Everyone has metaphysical things to say about the Universe and life and if anyone claims to have no worldview they are simply fooling themselves. I leave it to your judgment whether Darwinists or Christians have the superior worldview. I do hereby assert that Darwinism is in fact a religion.

One of the most popular religions in the world is Darwinism and it exists and flourishes among scientists. Michael Ruse was professor of philosophy and zoology at the University of Guelph, Canada (recently moved to Florida), He was the leading anti-creationist philosopher whose (flawed) arguments seemed to convince the biased judge to rule against the Arkansas ‘balanced treatment’ (of creation and evolution in schools) bill in 1981/2. At the trial, he and the other the anti-creationists loftily dismissed the claim that evolution was an anti-god religion.

Ruse is the rather entertaining source of the repeated claim that he made on camera during the "Expelled" movie about life forming "on the backs of crystals!"

Yet we have the following statement made by Ruse:

"Evolution is promoted by its practitioners as more than mere science. Evolution is promulgated as an ideology, a secular religion—a full-fledged alternative to Christianity, with meaning and morality. I am an ardent evolutionist and an ex-Christian, but I must admit that in this one complaint—and Mr [sic] Gish is but one of many to make it—the literalists are absolutely right. Evolution is a religion. This was true of evolution in the beginning, and it is true of evolution still today… Evolution therefore came into being as a kind of secular ideology, an explicit substitute for Christianity."

Ruse, M., How evolution became a religion: creationists correct? National Post, pp. B1,B3,B7 May 13, 2000.

There is absolutely no question that the first underpinning of any belief system is the decision to either consider or rule out the supernatural. Darwinism is certainly a religion and a component of many atheist's catechism into their particular branch of humanism.

Professor Richard Lewontin, a geneticist (and self-proclaimed Marxist), is certainly one of the world’s leaders in evolutionary biology. He wrote this very revealing comment (the italics were in the original). It illustrates the implicit philosophical bias against Genesis creation—regardless of whether or not the facts support it.

‘We take the side of science in spite of the patent absurdity of some of its constructs, in spite of its failure to fulfill many of its extravagant promises of health and life, in spite of the tolerance of the scientific community for unsubstantiated just-so stories, because we have a prior commitment, a commitment to materialism.
It is not that the methods and institutions of science somehow compel us to accept a material explanation of the phenomenal world, but, on the contrary, that we are forced by our a priori adherence to material causes to create an apparatus of investigation and a set of concepts that produce material explanations, no matter how counter-intuitive, no matter how mystifying to the uninitiated. Moreover, that materialism is an absolute, for we cannot allow a Divine Foot in the door.
The eminent Kant scholar Lewis Beck used to say that anyone who could believe in God could believe in anything. To appeal to an omnipotent deity is to allow that at any moment the regularities of nature may be ruptured, that Miracles may happen [but see the difference between origin and operational science—Ed.].’

Richard Lewontin, Billions and billions of demons, The New York Review, p. 31, 9 January 1997

This quote should be recognizable to you as I have used it before. Lewontin asserts that science is not required to have a naturalist materialist point of view but it is instead scientists who prefer to adhere to that point of view because they cannot countenance any other possibility. Again, science should not be limited to only one set of possibilities when investigating things unknown or uncertain.

"It is no more heretical to say the Universe displays purpose, as Hoyle has done, than to say that it is pointless, as Steven Weinberg has done. Both statements are metaphysical and outside science. Yet it seems that scientists are permitted by their own colleagues to say metaphysical things about lack of purpose and not the reverse. This suggests to me that science, in allowing this metaphysical notion, sees itself as religion and presumably as an atheistic religion (if you can have such a thing)."

Shallis, M., In the eye of a storm, New Scientist, pp. 42–43, January 19, 1984.

In fact, it is fair to say that many scientists clearly have allowed their religion to cloud their ability to think clearly. Richard Dawkins is obviously one such scientist, a fellow so clouded in his thinking that he could say to Bill Moyers of PBS,

"Evolution has been observed. It’s just that it hasn’t been observed while it’s happening."

Oh, okay, we have observed it but it wasn't happening at the time. That sneaky evolution! It either happens so fast we cannot see it or so slow we cannot last long enough to detect it. That Dawkins is a respected Darwinist and that he could make such a statement with a straight face is a sign to me that he simply has allowed his mind to accept anything but God. It appears it is possible to brainwash one's own self!

Dr Scott Todd, an immunologist at Kansas State University: "Even if all the data point to an intelligent designer, such an hypothesis is excluded from science because it is not naturalistic" Todd, S.C., correspondence to Nature 401(6752):423, 30 Sept. 1999

So Dawkins is certainly not alone. I am reminded of Luke 16 when Jesus taught about a beggar in paradise and a rich man in the place of torment, especially verses 27 to 31:

"He answered, 'Then I beg you, father, send Lazarus to my father's house, for I have five brothers. Let him warn them, so that they will not also come to this place of torment.'

"Abraham replied, 'They have Moses and the Prophets; let them listen to them.'

" 'No, father Abraham,' he said, 'but if someone from the dead goes to them, they will repent.'

"He said to him, 'If they do not listen to Moses and the Prophets, they will not be convinced even if someone rises from the dead.' "

If Richard Dawkins has made up his mind that there is no God, no proof or evidence will change his mind. "The fool has said in his heart, 'there is no God.'"

Charles Lyell and James Hutton whose uniformitarian views of the rock records helped Darwin formulate his particular hypothesis did admit that he had a particular objective in mind when he posited (incorrectly) that the rock formations found around the world had been formed by long-term steady accumulations of debris over millions of years. His aim was to "free science" from God and the Bible. Now this is rather ironic in that belief in God and the Bible had led scientists to believe that logical and orderly processes could be found in nature to explain how things worked. What follows is a list of prominent Theists and Bible-believers who helped shaped modern science:


  • Francis Bacon (1561–1626) Scientific method. However, see also Culture Wars:
    1. Part 1: Bacon vs Ham
    2. Part 2: Ham vs Bacon
  • Gerardus Mercator (1512–1594) Cartography; inventor of the Mercator projection, the standard map for navigation because a course at a constant bearing corresponds to a straight line. He wrote “When I saw that Moses’ account of the world’s origin was in many ways different from that of Aristotle and the other philosophers, I began to doubt their teaching and set about studying nature’s secrets instead.” He was in prison for 7 months suspected of being a Lutheran and his great life’s work, his atlas, contained a thesis on the first chapter of Genesis where he defended God’s word against the philosophers. (Thanks to Catherine Olaussen, Norway)
  • Galileo Galilei (1564–1642) (WOH) Physics, astronomy (see also The Galileo ‘twist’, The Galileo affair: history or heroic hagiography?, and Galileo Quadricentennial: Myth vs fact
  • Johann Kepler (1571–1630) (WOH) Scientific astronomy
  • Athanasius Kircher (1601–1680) Inventor
  • John Wilkins (1614–1672)
  • Walter Charleton (1619–1707) President of the Royal College of Physicians
  • Blaise Pascal and article from Creation magazine (1623–1662) Hydrostatics; barometer
  • Sir William Petty (1623 –1687) Statistics; scientific economics
  • Robert Boyle (1627–1691) (WOH) Chemistry; gas dynamics
  • John Ray (1627–1705) Natural history
  • Isaac Barrow (1630–1677) Professor of mathematics
  • Nicolaus Steno (né Niels Stensen, 1631–1686) Stratigraphy; see also Geological pioneer was a biblical creationist.
  • Thomas Burnet (1635–1715) Geology
  • Increase Mather (1639–1723) Astronomy
  • Nehemiah Grew (1641–1712) Medical doctor, botany

Back to top

The age of Newton

  • Isaac Newton (1642–1727) (WOH) Dynamics; Calculus; Gravitation law; Reflecting telescope; Spectrum of light (wrote more about the Bible than science, and emphatically affirmed a Creator. Some have accused him of Arianism, but it’s likely he held to a heterodox form of the Trinity—See Pfizenmaier, T.C., Was Isaac Newton an Arian? Journal of the History of Ideas68(1):57–80, 1997)
  • Gottfried Wilhelm Leibnitz (1646–1716) Mathematician
  • John Flamsteed (1646–1719) Greenwich Observatory Founder; Astronomy
  • William Derham (1657–1735) Ecology
  • Cotton Mather (1662–1727) Physician
  • John Harris (1666–1719) Mathematician
  • John Woodward (1665–1728) Paleontology
  • William Whiston (1667–1752) Physics, Geology
  • John Hutchinson (1674–1737) Paleontology
  • Johathan Edwards (1703–1758) Physics, Meteorology
  • Carolus Linnaeus (1707–1778) Taxonomy; biological classification system
  • Jean Deluc (1727–1817) Geology
  • Richard Kirwan (1733–1812) Mineralogy
  • William Herschel (1738–1822) Galactic astronomy; Uranus (probably believed in an old-earth)
  • James Parkinson (1755–1824) Physician (old-earth compromiser*)
  • John Dalton (1766–1844) Atomic theory, gas law
  • John Kidd, M.D. (1775–1851) Chemical synthetics (old-earth compromiser*)

Back to top

Just before Darwin

  • The 19th Century Scriptural Geologists, by Dr Terry Mortenson
  • Timothy Dwight (1752–1817) Educator
  • William Kirby (1759–1850) Entomologist
  • Jedidiah Morse (1761–1826) Geographer
  • Benjamin Barton (1766–1815) Botanist; Zoologist
  • John Dalton (1766–1844) Father of modern atomic theory; chemistry
  • Georges Cuvier (1769–1832) Comparative anatomy, paleontology (old-earth compromiser*)
  • Samuel Miller (1770–1840) Clergy
  • Charles Bell (1774–1842) Anatomist
  • John Kidd (1775–1851) Chemistry
  • George Young (1777–1848) Geology
  • Humphrey Davy (1778–1829) Thermokinetics; safety lamp
  • Andrew Ure (1778–1857) Chemistry
  • Benjamin Silliman (1779–1864) Mineralogist (old-earth compromiser*)
  • Peter Mark Roget (1779–1869) Physician; physiologist
  • Thomas Chalmers (1780–1847) Professor (old-earth compromiser*)
  • David Brewster (1781–1868) Optical mineralogy, Kaleidoscope (probably believed in an old-earth)
  • William Buckland (1784–1856) Geologist (old-earth compromiser*)
  • William Prout (1785–1850) Food chemistry (probably believed in an old-earth)
  • Adam Sedgwick (1785–1873) Geology (old-earth compromiser*)
  • John Murray (1786?–1851) Geology
  • George Fairholme (1789–1846) Geology
  • Michael Faraday (1791–1867) (WOH) Electro magnetics; Field theory, Generator
  • Samuel F.B. Morse (1791–1872) Telegraph
  • John Herschel (1792–1871) Astronomy (old-earth compromiser*)
  • Edward Hitchcock (1793–1864) Geology (old-earth compromiser*)
  • William Whewell (1794–1866) Anemometer (old-earth compromiser*)
  • William Rhind (1797–1874) Geology
  • Joseph Henry (1797–1878) Electric motor; galvanometer

Back to top

Just after Darwin

  • Richard Owen (1804–1892) Zoology; Paleontology (old-earth compromiser*)
  • Matthew Maury (1806–1873) Oceanography, Hydrography (probably believed in an old-earth*)
  • Louis Agassiz (1807–1873) Glaciology, Ichthyology (old-earth compromiser, polygenist*)
  • Henry Rogers (1808–1866) Geology
  • James Glaisher (1809–1903) Meteorology
  • Philip H. Gosse (1810–1888) Ornithologist; zoology
  • Sir Henry Rawlinson (1810–1895) Archaeologist
  • James Simpson (1811–1870) Gynecology, Anesthesiology
  • James Dana (1813–1895) Geology (old-earth compromiser*)
  • Sir Joseph Henry Gilbert (1817–1901) Agricultural chemist
  • James Joule (1818–1889) Thermodynamics
  • Thomas Anderson (1819–1874) Chemist
  • Charles Piazzi Smyth (1819–1900) Astronomy
  • George Stokes (1819–1903) Fluid Mechanics
  • John William Dawson (1820–1899) Geology (probably believed in an old-earth*)
  • Rudolph Virchow (1821–1902) Pathology
  • Gregor Mendel (1822–1884) (WOH) Genetics
  • Louis Pasteur (1822–1895) (WOH) Bacteriology, Biochemistry; Sterilization; Immunization
  • Henri Fabre (1823–1915) Entomology of living insects
  • William Thompson, Lord Kelvin (1824–1907) Energetics; Absolute temperatures; Atlantic cable (believed in an older earth than the Bible indicates, but far younger than the evolutionists wanted*)
  • William Huggins (1824–1910) Astral spectrometry
  • Bernhard Riemann (1826–1866) Non-Euclidean geometries
  • Joseph Lister (1827–1912) Antiseptic surgery
  • Balfour Stewart (1828–1887) Ionospheric electricity
  • James Clerk Maxwell (1831–1879) (WOH) Electrodynamics; statistical thermodynamics
  • P.G. Tait (1831–1901) Vector analysis
  • John Bell Pettigrew (1834–1908) Anatomist; physiologist
  • John Strutt, Lord Rayleigh (1842–1919) Similitude; model analysis; inert gases
  • Sir William Abney (1843–1920) Astronomy
  • Alexander MacAlister (1844–1919) Anatomy
  • A.H. Sayce (1845–1933) Archaeologist
  • John Ambrose Fleming (1849–1945) Electronics; electron tube; thermionic valve

Back to top

The modern period

  • Dr Clifford Burdick, Geology
  • George Washington Carver (1864–1943) Inventor
  • L. Merson Davies (1890–1960) Geology; paleontology
  • Douglas Dewar (1875–1957) Ornithology
  • Howard A. Kelly (1858–1943) Gynecology
  • Paul Lemoine (1878–1940) Geology
  • Dr Frank Marsh, Biology
  • Dr John Mann, Agriculturist, biological control pioneer
  • Edward H. Maunder (1869–1931) Astronomy
  • Prof. Nicolae Paulescu (1890–1960) Human physiology, medicine
  • William Mitchell Ramsay (1851–1939) Archaeology
  • William Ramsay (1852–1916) Isotopic chemistry, element transmutation
  • Charles Stine (1882–1954) Organic Chemistry
  • Dr Arthur Rendle-Short (1885–1955) Surgery
  • Sir Cecil P. G. Wakeley (1892–1979) Surgery
  • Dr Larry Butler, Biochemistry
  • Prof. Verna Wright, Rheumatology (deceased 1997)
  • Arthur E. Wilder-Smith (1915–1995) Three science doctorates; a creation science pioneer
This is not a complete list. There are thousands of scientists who believe in God in the world today and their numbers are doubtless dwarfed by Darwinists. But this is a very hard thing to determine, since at least a tacit approval of long ages and Darwinism is a requirement for most teaching positions and research positions whether or not the particular discipline directly applies to origins. The ruling paradigm demands belief in Darwinism or at least that those who do not agree keep their mouths shut about it.

The Atheists Know … Why Christianity has to Fight Evolution

"Christianity has fought, still fights, and will continue to fight science to the desperate end over evolution, because evolution destroys utterly and finally the very reason Jesus’ earthly life was supposedly made necessary. Destroy Adam and Eve and the original sin, and in the rubble you will find the sorry remains of the Son of God. If Jesus was not the redeemer who died for our sins, and this is what evolution means, then Christianity is nothing."


G. Richard Bozarth, ‘The Meaning of Evolution’, American Atheist, p. 30. 20 September 1979.

Evolution incompatible with Christianity

"People seem to think that Christianity and evolution do or can go together. But I suggest this is only possible for the intellectually schizophrenic. Biological theory does not require or allow any sort of divine guidance for the evolutionary process …"

David Oldroyd, The (Australian) Weekend Review, 20–21 March 1993, p. 5. (David Oldroyd was associate professor in the School of Science and Technology Studies at the University of New South Wales, Australia.)

Eventually a logical man must look carefully at Genesis and decide whether the meaning of the words are literal or figurative. Bible exegetical rules indicate that the days of creation are 24 hour days.

OT Professor Todd Beall:
take Genesis 1 as written, rather than crave secular respectability

Todd Beall, Ph.D., Professor of Old Testament, Capital Bible Seminary, Lanham, MD:

In fact, it is fascinating that the day-age advocates insist (correctly) that Gen 1 speaks of the days in sequential action, while the framework hypothesis advocates insist (correctly) that the days of Gen 1 are literal 24-hour days. Only the literal 24-hour day view holds that the days are both sequential and literal 24-hour periods. …
Why not take the words of Gen 1 at face value, as simple, straightforward sequential narrative of God’s miraculous creative activity? If that causes some intellectuals to label us as “narrow-minded clowns”, then so be it. The claims of Christ are narrow (John 14:6: “I am the Way, the Truth, and the Life; no man comes to the Father but by Me”); the gospel is narrow; and the cross is regarded as foolishness by the wisdom of this world (1 Cor 1:18–31). But it is true nonetheless. Heb 11:3 says that “by faith we understand that the worlds were framed by the word of God, so that the things which are seen were not made of things which are visible.” Do we really think that contemporary science is more authoritative than God’s revelation? Sometimes our intellectual pride may get in the way of our faith: if the inerrant Scripture in Gen 1 states that God created the world in six literal days, then why should we not simply accept it, rather than try to find all kinds of ways to explain it away? Sometimes the plain, simplest, most natural reading of the text is, indeed the best. Such is the case with Gen 1, despite all the attempts to explain it in some other, more complicated way.

Related articles


  1. Todd Beall, Christians in the public square: How far should Evangelicals go in the Creation-Evolution debate?, Evangelical Theological Society, 15 November 2006.
The fact is that not only is Darwinism a religion, it is a bad religion. It must be zealously protected from inspection lest it be cast aside as bad philosophy and bad science. It is quite ironic that one of the censors of the ruling paradigm is named Eugenie!

The atheistic anti-creationist Eugenie Scott, leader of the anticreationist National Center for Science Education, tacitly admitted that if students heard criticisms of evolution, they might end up not believing it!

“In my opinion, using creation and evolution as topics for critical-thinking exercises in primary and secondary schools is virtually guaranteed to confuse students about evolution and may lead them to reject one of the major themes in science.” Larry Witham, Where Darwin Meets the Bible, p. 23, Oxford University Press, 2002.]
You wonder if Eugenie was named for Eugenics, one of the tenets of thought that is peripheral to Darwinism and in fact may be an unavoidable conclusion drawn from Darwin's writings.
"Since Darwin’s death, all has not been rosy in the evolutionary garden. The theories of the Great Bearded One have been hijacked by cranks, politicians, social reformers—and scientists—to support racist and bigoted views. A direct line runs from Darwin, through the founder of the eugenics movement—Darwin's cousin, Francis Galton—to the extermination camps of Nazi Europe." Martin Brookes, ‘Ripe old age,’ New Scientist 161(2171):41, 1999.

Sir Arthur Keith was a British anthropologist, an atheistic evolutionist and an anti-Nazi, but he drew this chilling conclusion:

"The German Führer, as I have consistently maintained, is an evolutionist; he has consciously sought to make the practice of Germany conform to the theory of evolution." Keith, A., Evolution and Ethics, Putnam, NY, USA, p. 230, 1947.
The legacy of Darwin includes Eugenics (as practiced in the United States by advocates such as the founder of Planned Parenthood, Margaret Sanger) and ethnic cleansing as practiced by Adolf Hitler and his henchmen. Consider that now that our society has been soaked in Darwin for a few decades we have legalized abortion and government-mandated euthanasia either purposefully or simply a side effect of the rationing and waiting lines typical of government-run healthcare that we will have under Obamacare unless it is quickly defunded and repealed.

Darwinism also provided the excuse for the most immoral sexual activities to be practiced and studied by the heinous Alfred Kinsey and the infamous Institute. Perhaps Indiana's best known pedophile, Kinsey is an example of applied Darwinism.

From a debate between two evolutionists. Jaron Lanier is a computer scientist; Richard Dawkins is a professor at Oxford and an ardent atheist.

Jaron Lanier: "There’s a large group of people who simply are uncomfortable with accepting evolution because it leads to what they perceive as a moral vacuum, in which their best impulses have no basis in nature."
Richard Dawkins: "All I can say is, That’s just tough. We have to face up to the truth."

‘Evolution: The dissent of Darwin,’ Psychology Today 30(1):62, Jan-Feb 1997.

That's just tough. Darwinism means the end of morality because there are no absolutes, there is no purpose to life, there are no consequences for actions beyond those that cannot be avoided in this lifetime. Darwinism means no basis for calling an action either good or evil and if taken to the extreme it means no free will. Darwinism leads to the conclusion that we are all simply what we have evolved to be and we suffice to give life to the next generation as a reason for living if that is indeed reason enough.

The greatest joke?

"I myself am convinced that the theory of evolution, especially the extent to which it’s been applied, will be one of the great jokes in the history books of the future. Posterity will marvel that so very flimsy and dubious an hypothesis could be accepted with the incredible credulity that it has." – Malcolm Muggeridge, well-known British journalist and philosopher—Pascal Lectures, University of Waterloo, Ontario, Canada.

Sadly, if Darwinism is a joke then mankind and morality and millions of unborn children are the butt of said joke. Tragedy would be a better term. Darwinism is the excuse for the lack of moral standards, the abandonment of our traditional belief systems and the acceptance of various behaviors once considered unmentionable. Not my idea of a joke.

Hat tip to

Thursday, April 22, 2010

Carbon 14/Radiometric Dating and etc. Part two

First, announcements and such...

I have previously stated the following:
  • Belief in a young Earth is not necessary to be a Christian.
  • Belief in Darwinism does not disqualify one from being a Christian.
  • Belief in YEC is the most logical position based on the wording of the Bible.
  • In my opinion, belief in YEC is far and away the most logical view based on evidence.
  • Young Earth Creationism is a scientific discipline based on evidence.
  • The Bible is evidence. It is one piece of evidence only, but a strong one.
  • Naturalism is not "scientific" but rather an assumption made that is metaphysical rather than scientific in nature.
  • Accepting the possibility of the supernatural does not automatically include it, but rather simply allows for that possibility.
  • The Discovery Institute is not a YEC organization and many of their membership are most definitely NOT Christians. They are an organization that studies the Intelligent Design of organisms and in fact all material things.
  • I have not ruled out talkorigins as a source because of any reason other than the fact that they post information they know is incorrect in order to confuse or fool the ignorant.
  • Family Research Council is not a scientific organization and is never linked to any scientific posts.
  • I have also ruled Dr. Dino out and a few other sites that ostensibly promote YEC because they will post knowingly false information.
  • Whereas I have posted things that I later discovered were incorrect (and said so) I do not intentionally post false data and have no plan to begin to do so.
  • Therefore when a commenter begins saying I lie intentionally, readers, he is trying to draw attention away from the subject at hand. So if a commenter says that I am lying, be sure to re-read the post because there is something in there he is afraid that you will believe.
Rules of engagement:
  • If I or one of my commenters correctly quotes another source and that source turns out to be false, we should acknowledge that mistake made by the source. I will not call creeper a liar for posting things from talkorigins, I simply refuse to pay attention to them and it would appear that creeper feels the same way about FRC. Fair enough.
  • Swearing or pornography of any kind detected on the threads will be deleted. A commenter who disagrees with me will not be banned or erased, but keep the language civil even if the argument is intense.
  • I admit fully that I have a worldview and that worldview has changed over time. If you read this blog for very long and do not yet understand that you have a worldview then you are not paying attention. Know thyself!

What about carbon dating? (Illustrations available at weblink)

Here are a few excerpts from the pdf:

How does the carbon ‘clock’ work?
• Is it reliable?
• What does carbon dating really show?
• What about other radiometric dating methods?
• Is there evidence that the Earth is young?

PEOPLE who ask about carbon-14 (14C) dating usually want to
know about the radiometric ( Also known as isotope or radioisotope dating)
dating methods that are claimed to give
millions and billions of years—carbon dating can only give
thousands of years. People wonder how millions of years could be
squeezed into the biblical account of history.

Clearly, such huge time periods cannot be fitted into the Bible without
compromising what the Bible says about the goodness of God and the
origin of sin, death and suffering—the reason Jesus came into the world
(see Chapter 2).

Christians, by definition, take the statements of Jesus Christ seriously.
He said, ‘But from the beginning of the creation God made them male and
female’ (Mark 10:6). This only makes sense with a time line
beginning with the creation week thousands of years ago. It makes no
sense at all if man appeared at the end of billions of years.

We will deal with carbon dating first and then with the other dating

How the carbon clock works

Carbon has unique properties that are essential for life on Earth. Familiar
to us as the black substance in charred wood, as diamonds, and as the
graphite in ‘lead’ pencils, carbon comes in several forms, or isotopes.
One rare form has atoms that are 14 times as heavy as hydrogen atoms:
carbon-14, or 14C, or radiocarbon.

Carbon-14 is made when cosmic rays knock neutrons out of atomic
nuclei in the upper atmosphere. These displaced neutrons, now moving
fast, hit ordinary nitrogen (14N) at lower altitudes, converting it into
14C. Unlike common carbon (12C), 14C is unstable and slowly decays,
changing back into nitrogen and releasing energy. This instability makes
it radioactive.

Ordinary carbon (12C) is found in the carbon dioxide (CO2) in the
air, which is taken up by plants, which in turn are eaten by animals.
So a bone, or a leaf of a tree, or even a pieceof wooden furniture,
contains carbon. When 14C has been formed, like ordinary carbon
(12C), it combines with oxygen to give carbon dioxide (14CO2), and
so italso gets cycled through the cells of plants and animals.

We can take a sample of air, count how many 12C atoms there are for
every 14C atom, and calculate the 14C/12C. 14C is gained by living things
but lost after death.

Upper atmosphere conversion of 14N to 14C 14C in carbon dioxide taken
up by plants 14C regained as animals eat plants. Some loss of 14C by decay ratio.
14N Loss of 14C by decay and no replacement from eating 14N After death:

What about carbon dating?

Because 14C is so well mixed up with 12C, we expect to find that
this ratio is the same if we sample a leaf from a tree, or a part of your body.

In living things, although 14C atoms are constantly changing back
to 14N, they are still exchanging carbon with their surroundings, so the
mixture remains about the same as in the atmosphere. However, as
soon as a plant or animal dies, the 14C atoms which decay are no longer
replaced, so the amount of 14C in that once-living thing decreases as
time goes on (Figure 1). In other words, the 14C/12C ratio gets smaller.

So, we have a ‘clock’ which starts ticking the moment something

Obviously, this works only for things which were once living. It
cannot be used to date volcanic rocks, for example.
The rate of decay of 14C is such that half of an amount will convert
back to 14N in 5,730 ± 40 years. This is the ‘half-life’. So, in two halflives,
or 11,460 years, only one-quarter will be left. Thus, if the amount
of 14C relative to 12C in a sample is one-quarter of that in living organisms
at present, then it has a theoretical age of 11,460 years. Anything over
about 50,000 years old should theoretically have no detectable 14C left.

That is why radiocarbon dating cannot give millions of years. In fact,
if a sample contains 14C, it is good evidence that it is not millions of
years old. However, things are not quite so simple. Firstly, plants discriminate
against carbon dioxide containing 14C. That is, they take up less than would be
expected and so they test older than they really are.Furthermore, different
types of plants discriminate differently. This also has to be corrected for.2

2. Today, a stable carbon isotope, 13C, is measured as an indication of the level of discrimination
against 14C.


Secondly, the ratio of 14C/12C in the atmosphere has not been
constant—for example it was higher before the industrial era when the
massive burning of fossil fuels released a lot of carbon dioxide that was
depleted in 14C. This would make things which died at that time appear
older in terms of carbon dating. Then there was a rise in 14CO2 with
the advent of atmospheric testing of atomic bombs in the 1950s.3 This
would make things carbon- dated from that time appear younger than
their true age.

Measurement of 14C in historically dated objects (e.g. seeds in
the graves of historically dated tombs) enables the level of 14C in the
atmosphere at that time to be estimated, and so partial calibration of the
‘clock’ is possible. Accordingly, carbon dating carefully applied to items
from historical times can be useful. However, even with such historical
calibration, archaeologists do not regard 14C dates as absolute because
of frequent anomalies. They rely more on dating methods that link into
historical records.

Outside the range of recorded history, calibration of the 14C ‘clock’ is not possible.4
Other factors affecting carbon dating
The amount of cosmic rays penetrating Earth’s atmosphere affects the
amount of 14C produced and therefore the dating system. The amount
of cosmic rays reaching the Earth varies with the sun’s activity, and with
the Earth’s passage through magnetic clouds as the solar system travels
around the Milky Way galaxy.

The strength of the Earth’s magnetic field affects the amount of
cosmic rays entering the atmosphere. A stronger magnetic field deflects
more cosmic rays away from the Earth. Overall, the energy of the Earth’s
magnetic field has been decreasing,5 so more 14C is being produced now than in
the past. This will make old things look older than they really are.

3. Radiation from atomic testing, like cosmic rays, causes the conversion of 14N to 14C.

4. Tree ring dating (dendrochronology) has been used in an attempt to extend the calibration
of carbon-14 dating earlier than historical records allow, but this depends on temporal
placement of fragments of wood (from long-dead trees) using carbon-14 dating, assuming
straight-line extrapolation backwards. Then cross-matching of ring patterns is used
to calibrate the carbon ‘clock’—a somewhat circular process which does not give an
independent calibration of the carbon dating system.

5. McDonald, K.L. and Gunst, R.H., 1965. An analysis of the earth’s magnetic field from
1835 to 1965. ESSA Technical Report IER 46-IES, U.S. Government Printing Office,
Washington, D.C., p. 14.

What about carbon dating?~71

Also, the Genesis Flood would have greatly upset the carbon balance.
The Flood buried a huge amount of carbon, which became coal, oil, etc.,
lowering the total 12C in the biosphere (including the atmosphere—plants
regrowing after the Flood absorb CO2 which is not replaced by the decay
of the buried vegetation).6 Total 14C is also proportionately lowered at
this time, but whereas no terrestrial process generates any more 12C, 14C
is continually being produced, and at a rate which does not depend on
carbon levels (it comes from nitrogen). Therefore the 14C level relative
to 12C increases after the Flood. So the 14C/12C ratio in plants/animals/
the atmosphere before the Flood had to be lower than what it is now.

Unless this effect (which is additional to the magnetic field issue just discussed)
were corrected for, carbon dating of fossils formed in the Flood would give
ages much older than the true ages.

Creationist researchers have suggested that dates of 35,000–45,000
years should be recalibrated to the biblical date for the Flood.7 Such a
recalibration makes sense of anomalous data from carbon dating—for
example, very discordant ‘dates’ for different parts of a frozen musk ox
carcass from Alaska and an inordinately slow rate of accumulation of
ground sloth dung pellets in the older layers of a cave where the layers
were carbon dated.7

6. Taylor, B.J., 1994. Carbon dioxide in the antediluvian atmosphere. Creation Research
Society Quarterly 30(4):193–197.

7. Brown, R.H., 1992. Correlation of C-14 age with real time. Creation Research Society
Quarterly 29:45–47. Musk ox muscle was dated at 24,000 years, but hair was dated at
17,000 years. Corrected dates bring the difference in age approximately within the life span
of a musk ox. With sloth cave dung, standard carbon dates of the lower layers suggested
less than 2 pellets per year were produced by the sloths. Correcting the dates increased
the number to a more realistic 1.4 per day.


Okay, the above is only about one-third of the article, which you can read by following the link. A similar article is found below:


A handbook for students, parents, and teachers countering the latest arguments for evolution

by Jonathan Sarfati, Ph.D., F.M.

How old is the earth?

First published in Refuting Evolution, Chapter 8

For particles-to-people evolution to have occurred, the earth would need to be billions of years old. So Teaching about Evolution and the Nature of Science presents what it claims is evidence for vast time spans. This is graphically illustrated in a chart on pages 36–37: man’s existence is in such a tiny segment at the end of a 5-billion-year time-line that it has to be diagrammatically magnified twice to show up.

On the other hand, basing one’s ideas on the Bible gives a very different picture. The Bible states that man was made six days after creation, about 6,000 years ago. So a time-line of the world constructed on biblical data would have man almost at the beginning, not the end. If we took the same 15-inch (39 cm) time-line as does Teaching about Evolution to represent the biblical history of the earth, man would be about 1/1000 of a mm away from the beginning! Also, Christians, by definition, take the statements of Jesus Christ seriously. He said: ‘But from the beginning of the creation God made them male and female’ (Mark 10:6), which would make sense with the proposed biblical time-line, but is diametrically opposed to the Teaching about Evolution time-line.

This chapter analyzes rock formation and dating methods in terms of what these two competing models would predict.

The rocks

The vast thicknesses of sedimentary rocks around the world are commonly used as evidence for vast age. First, Teaching about Evolution gives a useful definition on page 33:

Sedimentary rocks are formed when solid materials carried by wind and water accumulate in layers and then are compressed by overlying deposits. Sedimentary rocks sometimes contain fossils formed from the parts of organisms deposited along with other solid materials.

The ‘deep time’ indoctrination comes with the statement ‘often reaching great thicknesses over long periods of time.’ However, this goes beyond the evidence. Great thicknesses could conceivably be produced either by a little water over long periods, or a lot of water over short periods. We have already discussed how different biases can result in different interpretations of the same data, in this case the rock layers. It is a philosophical decision, not a scientific one, to prefer the former interpretation. Because sedimentation usually occurs slowly today, it is assumed that it must have always occurred slowly. If so, then the rock layers must have formed over vast ages. The philosophy that processes have always occurred at roughly constant rates (‘the present is the key to the past’) is often called uniformitarianism.

Uniformitarianism was defined this way in my own university geology class in 1983, and was contrasted with catastrophism. But more recently, the word ‘uniformitarianism’ has been applied in other contexts to mean also constancy of natural laws, sometimes called ‘methodological uniformitarianism,’ as opposed to what some have called ‘substantive uniformitarianism.’

It should also be pointed out that uniformitarian geologists have long allowed for the occasional (localized) catastrophic event. However, modern historical geology grew out of this general ‘slow and gradual’ principle, which is still the predominantly preferred framework of explanation for any geological formation. Nevertheless, the evidence for catastrophic formation is so pervasive that there is a growing body of neo-catastrophists. But because of their naturalistic bias, they prefer, of course, to reject the explanation of the Genesis (global) flood.

However, a cataclysmic globe-covering (and fossil-forming) flood would have eroded huge quantities of sediment, and deposited them elsewhere. Many organisms would have been buried very quickly and fossilized.

Also, recent catastrophes show that violent events like the flood described in Genesis could form many rock layers very quickly. The Mount St. Helens eruption in Washington state produced 25 feet (7.6 meters) of finely layered sediment in a single afternoon!1 And a rapidly pumped sand slurry was observed to deposit 3 to 4 feet (about 1 meter) of fine layers on a beach over an area the size of a football field. Sedimentation experiments by the creationist Guy Berthault, sometimes working with non-creationists, have shown that fine layers can form by a self-sorting mechanism during the settling of differently sized particles.2,3

In one of Berthault’s experiments, finely layered sandstone and diatomite rocks were broken into their constituent particles, and allowed to settle under running water at various speeds. It was found that the same layer thicknesses were reproduced, regardless of flow rate. This suggests that the original rock was produced by a similar self-sorting mechanism, followed by cementing of the particles together.4The journal Nature reported similar experiments by evolutionists a decade after Berthault’s first experiments.5

So when we start from the bias that the Bible is God’s Word and is thus true, we can derive reasonable interpretations of the data. Not that every problem has been solved, but many of them have been.

Conversely, how does the ‘slow and gradual’ explanation fare? Think how long dead organisms normally last. Scavengers and rotting normally remove all traces within weeks. Dead jellyfish normally melt away in days. Yet Teaching about Evolution has a photo of a fossil jellyfish on page 36. It clearly couldn’t have been buried slowly, but must have been buried quickly by sediments carried by water. This water would also have contained dissolved minerals, which would have caused the sediments to have been cemented together, and so hardened quickly.

The booklet Stones and Bones6 shows other fossils that must have formed rapidly. One is a 7-foot (2m) long ichthyosaur (extinct fish-shaped marine reptile) fossilized while giving birth. Another is a fish fossilized in the middle of its lunch. And there is a vertical tree trunk that penetrates several rock layers (hence the term polystrate fossil). If the upper sedimentary layers really took millions or even hundreds of years to form, then the top of the tree trunk would have rotted away.

Ironically, NASA scientists accept that there have been ‘catastrophic floods’ on Mars7 that carved out canyons8 although no liquid water is present today. But they deny that a global flood happened on earth, where there is enough water to cover the whole planet to a depth of 1.7 miles (2.7 km) if it were completely uniform, and even now covers 71 percent of the earth’s surface! If it weren’t for the fact that the Bible teaches it, they probably wouldn’t have any problem with a global flood on earth. This demonstrates again how the biases of scientists affect their interpretation of the evidence.

Radiometric dating

As shown above, the evidence from the geological record is consistent with catastrophes, and there are many features that are hard to explain by slow and gradual processes. However, evolutionists point to dating methods that allegedly support deep time. The best known is radiometric dating. This is accurately described on page 35 of Teaching about Evolution:

Some elements, such as uranium, undergo radioactive decay to produce other elements. By measuring the quantities of radioactive elements and the elements into which they decay in rocks, geologists can determine how much time has elapsed since the rock has cooled from an initially molten state.

However, the deep time ‘determination’ is an interpretation; the actual scientific data are isotope ratios. Each chemical element usually has several different forms, or isotopes, which have different masses. There are other possible interpretations, depending on the assumptions. This can be illustrated with an hourglass. When it is up-ended, sand flows from the top container to the bottom one at a rate that can be measured. If we observe an hourglass with the sand still flowing, we can determine how long ago it was up-ended from the quantities of sand in both containers and the flow rate. Or can we? First, we must assume three things:

Hourglass illustration

An hourglass ‘clock’ tells us the elapsed time by comparing the amount of sand in the top bowl (‘Parent’) with the amount in the bottom bowl (‘Daughter’).

  1. We know the quantities of sand in both containers at the start. Normally, an hourglass is up-ended when the top container is empty. But if this were not so, then it would take less time for the sand to fill the new bottom container to a particular level.
  2. The rate has stayed constant. For example, if the sand had become damp recently, it would flow more slowly now than in the past. If the flow were greater in the past, it would take less time for the sand to reach a certain level than it would if the sand had always flowed at the present rate.
  3. The system has remained closed. That is, no sand has been added or removed from either container. However, suppose that, without your knowledge, sand had been added to the bottom container, or removed from the top container. Then if you calculated the time since the last up-ending by measuring the sand in both containers, it would be longer than the actual time.

Teaching about Evolution addresses assumption 2:

For example, it requires that the rate of radioactive decay is constant over time and is not influenced by such factors as temperature and pressure—conclusions supported by extensive research in physics.

It is true that in today’s world, radioactive decay rates seem constant, and are unaffected by heat or pressure. However, we have tested decay rates for only about 100 years, so we can’t be sure that they were constant over the alleged billions of years. Physicist Dr Russell Humphreys suggests that decay rates were faster during creation week, and have remained constant since then. There is some basis for this, for example radiohalo analysis, but it is still tentative.

Teaching about Evolution also addresses assumption 3:

It also assumes that the rocks being analyzed have not been altered over time by migration of atoms in or out of the rocks, which requires detailed information from both the geologic and chemical sciences.

This is a huge assumption. Potassium and uranium, both common parent elements, are easily dissolved in water, so could be leached out of rocks. Argon, produced by decay from potassium, is a gas, so moves quite readily.


There are many examples where the dating methods give ‘dates’ that are wrong for rocks of known historical age. One example is rock from a dacite lava dome at Mount St Helens volcano. Although we know the rock was formed in 1986, the rock was ‘dated’ by the potassium-argon (K-Ar) method as 0.35 ± 0.05 million years old.9 Another example is K-Ar ‘dating’ of five andesite lava flows from Mt Ngauruhoe in New Zealand. The ‘dates’ ranged from <>

What happened was that excess radiogenic argon (40Ar*) from the magma (molten rock) was retained in the rock when it solidified. The secular scientific literature also lists many examples of excess 40Ar* causing ‘dates’ of millions of years in rocks of known historical age. This excess appears to have come from the upper mantle, below the earth’s crust. This is consistent with a young world—the argon has had too little time to escape.10

  • If excess 40Ar* can cause exaggerated dates for rocks of known age, then why should we trust the method for rocks of unknown age?

Another problem is the conflicting dates between different methods. If two methods disagree, then at least one of them must be wrong. For example, in Australia, some wood was buried by a basalt lava flow, as can be seen from the charring. The wood was ‘dated’ by radiocarbon (14C) analysis at about 45,000 years old, but the basalt was ‘dated’ by the K-Ar method at c. 45 million years old!11 Other fossil wood from Upper Permian rock layers has been found with 14C still present. Detectable 14C would have all disintegrated if the wood were really older than 50,000 years, let alone the 250 million years that evolutionists assign to these Upper Permian rock layers.12[Update: see also Radiometric dating breakthroughs for more examples of 14C in coal and diamonds, allegedly millions of years old.]

According to the Bible’s chronology, great age cannot be the true cause of the observed isotope ratios. Anomalies like the above are good supporting evidence, but we are not yet sure of the true cause in all cases. A group of creationist Ph.D. geologists and physicists from theCreation Research Society and the Institute for Creation Research are currently working on this topic. Their aim is to find out the precise geochemical and/or geophysical causes of the observed isotope ratios.13 One promising lead is questioning Assumption 1—the initial conditions are not what the evolutionists think, but are affected, for example, by the chemistry of the rock that melted to form the magma. [Update: it turned out that Assumption 2 was the most vulnerable, with strong evidence that decay rates were much faster in the past. See the results of their experiments in Radioisotopes & the Age of the Earth volumes 1 and 2.]

Evidence for a young world

Actually, 90 percent of the methods that have been used to estimate the age of the earth point to an age far less than the billions of years asserted by evolutionists. A few of them:

  • Red blood cells and hemoglobin have been found in some (unfossilized!) dinosaur bone. But these could not last more than a few thousand years—certainly not the 65 million years from when evolutionists think the last dinosaur lived.14
  • The earth’s magnetic field has been decaying so fast that it couldn’t be more than about 10,000 years old. Rapid reversals during the flood year and fluctuations shortly after just caused the field energy to drop even faster.15
  • Helium is pouring into the atmosphere from radioactive decay, but not much is escaping. But the total amount in the atmosphere is only 1/2000 of that expected if the atmosphere were really billions of years old. This helium originally escaped from rocks. This happens quite fast, yet so much helium is still in some rocks that it couldn’t have had time to escape—certainly not billions of years.16
  • A supernova is an explosion of a massive star—the explosion is so bright that it briefly outshines the rest of the galaxy. The supernova remnants (SNRs) should keep expanding for hundreds of thousands of years, according to the physical equations. Yet there are no very old, widely expanded (Stage 3) SNRs, and few moderately old (Stage 2) ones in our galaxy, the Milky Way, or in its satellite galaxies, the Magellanic clouds. This is just what we would expect if these galaxies had not existed long enough for wide expansion.17
  • The moon is slowly receding from earth at about 1½ inches (4 cm) per year, and the rate would have been greater in the past. But even if the moon had started receding from being in contact with the earth, it would have taken only 1.37 billion years to reach its present distance. This gives a maximum possible age of the moon—not the actual age. This is far too young for evolution (and much younger than the radiometric ‘dates’ assigned to moon rocks).18
  • Salt is pouring into the sea much faster than it is escaping. The sea is not nearly salty enough for this to have been happening for billions of years. Even granting generous assumptions to evolutionists, the seas could not be more than 62 million years old—far younger than the billions of years believed by evolutionists. Again, this indicates a maximum age, not the actual age.19

A number of other processes inconsistent with billions of years are given in the booklet Evidence for a Young World, by Dr Russell Humphreys.

Creationists admit that they can’t prove the age of the earth using a particular scientific method. They realize that all science is tentative because we do not have all the data, especially when dealing with the past. This is true of both creationist and evolutionist scientific arguments—evolutionists have had to abandon many ‘proofs’ for evolution as well. For example, the atheistic evolutionist W.B. Provine admits: ‘Most of what I learned of the field in graduate (1964–68) school is either wrong or significantly changed.’20 Creationists understand the limitations of these dating methods better than evolutionists who claim that they can use certain present processes to ‘prove’ that the earth is billions of years old. In reality, all age-dating methods, including those which point to a young earth, rely on unprovable assumptions.

Creationists ultimately date the earth using the chronology of the Bible. This is because they believe that this is an accurate eyewitness account of world history, which can be shown to be consistent with much data.

Addendum: John Woodmorappe has just published a detailed study demonstrating the fallacy of radiometric ‘dating,’ including the ‘high-tech’ isochron method: The Mythology of Modern Dating Methods (El Cajon, CA: Institute for Creation Research, 1999).

References and notes

  1. S.A. Austin, Mount St. Helens and Catastrophism, Proceedings of the First International Conference on Creationism, 1:3–9, ed. R.E. Walsh, R.S. Crowell, Creation Science Fellowship, Pittsburgh, PA, USA, 1986; for a simplified article, see K. Ham, I got excited at Mount St Helens! Creation 15(3):14–19, June–August 1993. Return to text.
  2. Don Batten, Sandy stripes, Creation 19(1):39–40, December 1996–February 1997. Return to text.
  3. P. Julien, Y. Lan, and G. Berthault, Experiments on Stratification of Heterogeneous Sand Mixtures, Journal of Creation 8(1):37–50, 1994. Return to text.
  4. G. Berthault, Experiments on Lamination of Sediments, Journal of Creation 3:25–29, 1988. Return to text.
  5. H.A. Makse, S. Havlin, P.R. King, and H.E. Stanley, Spontaneous Stratification in Granular Mixtures, Nature 386(6623):379–382, 27 March 1997. See also A. Snelling, Nature Finally Catches Up, Journal of Creation 11(2):125–6, 1997. Return to text.
  6. Carl Wieland, Stones and Bones, (Green Forest, AR: Master Books, Inc., 1994). Return to text.
  7. R.A. Kerr, Pathfinder Tells a Geologic Tale with One Starring Role, Science 279(5348):175, 9 January 1998. Return to text.
  8. O. Morton, Flatlands, New Scientist 159(2143):36–39, 18 July 1998. Return to text.
  9. S.A. Austin, Excess Argon within mineral Concentrates from the New Dacite Lava Dome at Mount St. Helens Volcano, Journal of Creation 10(3):335–343, 1986. Return to text.
  10. A.A. Snelling, The Cause of Anomalous Potassium-Argon ‘Ages’ for Recent Andesite Flows at Mt. Ngauruhoe, New Zealand, and the Implications for Potassium-Argon ‘Dating,’ Proceedings of the Fourth International Conference on Creationism, Creation Science Fellowship, Pittsburgh, ed. E. Walsh, 1998, p. 503–525. This document lists many examples. For example, six were reported by D. Krummenacher, Isotopic Composition of Argon in Modern Surface Rocks, Earth and Planetary Science Letters 8(2):109–117, April 1970; five were reported by G.B. Dalrymple, 40Ar/36Ar Analysis of Historic Lava Flows, Earth and Planetary Science Letters 6(1):47–55, 1969. Also, a large excess was reported in D.E. Fisher, Excess Rare Gases in a Subaerial Basalt from Nigeria, Nature Physical Science 232(29):60–61, 19 July 1971. Return to text.
  11. A.A. Snelling, Radiometric dating in conflict, Creation 20(1):24–27, December 1997–February 1998. Return to text.
  12. A.A. Snelling, Stumping old-age dogma, Creation 20(4):48–50, September–November 1998. Return to text.
  13. Institute for Creation Research, Acts and Facts 27(7), July 1998. Return to text.
  14. C. Wieland, Sensational dinosaur blood report!Creation 19(4):42–43, September–November 1997; based on research by M. Schweitzer and T. Staedter, The Real Jurassic Park, Earth, June 1997, p. 55–57. [Update: see Squirming at the Squishosaur and the linked articles for more recent evidence of elastic blood vessels in T. rex bones.] Return to text.
  15. D.R. Humphreys, Reversals of the Earth’s Magnetic Field During the Genesis Flood, Proceedings of the First International Conference on Creationism, vol. 2 (Pittsburgh, PA: Creation Science Fellowship, 1986), p. 113–126; J.D. Sarfati, The earth’s magnetic field: evidence that the earth is young, Creation 20(2):15–19, March–May 1998. Return to text.
  16. L. Vardiman, The Age of the Earth’s Atmosphere: A Study of the Helium Flux through the Atmosphere (El Cajon, CA: Institute for Creation Research, 1990); J.D. Sarfati, Blowing old-earth belief away: helium gives evidence that the earth is young, Creation 20(3):19–21, June–August 1998. Return to text.
  17. K. Davies, Distribution of Supernova Remnants in the Galaxy, Proceedings of the Third International Conference on Creationism, ed. R.E. Walsh, 1994, p. 175–184; J.D. Sarfati, Exploding stars point to a young universe, Creation 19(3):46–49, June–August 1998. See also How do spiral galaxies and supernova remnants fit in with Dr Humphreys’ cosmological model? Dr Russell Humphreys himself explains …. Return to text.
  18. D. DeYoung, The Earth-Moon System, Proceedings of the Second International Conference on Creationism, vol. 2, ed. R.E. Walsh and C.L Brooks, 1990, 79–84; J.D. Sarfati, The moon: the light that rules the night, Creation 20(4):36–39, September–November 1998. Return to text.
  19. S.A. Austin and D.R. Humphreys, The Sea’s Missing Salt: A Dilemma for Evolutionists, Proceedings of the Second International Conference on Creationism, Vol. 2, 1990, 17–33; J.D. Sarfati, Salty seas: evidence for a young earth, Creation 21(1):16–17, December 1998–February 1999. Return to text.
  20. Teaching about Evolution and the Nature of Science, A Review by Dr Will B. Provine; available online from (cited 18 February 1999). Return to text.